PDA

View Full Version : Nation Wars Redemption V2.0



Mr President
11-21-2012, 15:17
As we come to the end of the year I would like to announce that V2.0 of Nation Wars will be released next set (testing set) and if everything works well then fully released in January 2013.

Below is a list of changes that will be part of NW V2.0:

Attacks -

The game will only have 3 attacks.

Ground Attack - This pits Infantry/Tanks VS Infantry/Tanks. This attack is used to invade and occupy the enemies land. The occupied amount is added to your land. So basically, you have just invaded and declare that land, yours! There is no longer any "land grabbing" in the game. With that, also goes the large hits as well. If you want land quicker then you need to GA someone for a much smaller piece of land and take the chance of an all out war as there are no longer and "legal" attacks. You only gain the land with this attack. You will not get buildings or anything else too.

Air Attack - This is Jets/Bombers VS Jets/Sams. This attack destroys buildings, population and will also kill infantry and tanks at a higher % than the NA (Naval Assult).

Naval Attack - This is Ships VS Ships. This attack destroys military units and lowers readiness. With this attack the readiness is lowered at a random rate of 1-8 per attack.

Turns - It will still be 5 turns out of war and 2 turns while at war per attack.

Expanding - If you wish to not risk war you can explore for more land. This has been increased and will be adjust as needed.

Start Up Turns - Each state will now start out with 300 turns (up from 200). This includes restarts.

Max Turns - The max amount of turns one can have before they roll over to stored turns is 400.

Protection - Each state will leave protection at 300 turns (up from 200)

Science Production - This has been increased. Techers will now produce more science per turn.

Science Costs - The price of science has just gone up by 200.00 per science. With production higher and prices higher, it will help this strat.

Spies - Strength has been lowered, Prices have been lowered and production has been increased per turn. The prices of spies was outrageous compared to the capabilities of them.

Infantry - Strength has been lowered.

Tanks - Prices have been lowered, production has been increased.

Bombers - Prices have been lowered, production has been increased.

Ships - Prices have been lowered, production has been increased.

We needed to make sure units were more attractive but yet make it so indy's didn't lose on the deal. This is why production has been increased per turn. This will either offset the loss or equal it out. Tweaks will be made as needed.

The theme of the game will remain the same. It's a war game. If you want peace then play nice and use diplomacy. If you want to kill everything in sight then best of luck to you. Each state can increase it's land, but now it's not as simple as stocking 300 billion infantry and winning each attack. If you GA someone for land you better have other units to back you up as they can deploy new attacks to mess your state up.

For the first time ever war actually has more advantages than just killing. Now when you kill someone you are actually taking the land away from them instead of just killing it and it vanishing into thin air. Diplomacy will be needed more than ever. You will actually have to put some thought into winning the game. Now you will have to have strategic moves in order to avoid an all out war. Leaders will have to pick their members more carefully as now, having a rogue state could be costly.

I'll implement the new version at the start of next set. We will play a set with it and see how it goes. If all is well then it will be fully released in January 2013.

I think the most exciting part for me is, we are all starting on the same page now. None of our old styles will work with this new version. Each of us will now have to learn a new way.... And....... possibly have to really start interacting with other members. Imagine that!!!

Post your comments/questions but remember that it's a holiday weekend and well, I won't be all that active :)

L P
11-21-2012, 17:13
Keep up the good work!

Max Logan
11-21-2012, 17:35
Love the techer tweak!

Divine Intervention
11-21-2012, 17:43
As we come to the end of the year I would like to announce that V2.0 of Nation Wars will be released next set (testing set) and if everything works well then fully released in January 2013.

Below is a list of changes that will be part of NW V2.0:

Attacks -

The game will only have 3 attacks.

Ground Attack - This pits Infantry/Tanks VS Infantry/Tanks. This attack is used to invade and occupy the enemies land. The occupied amount is added to your land. So basically, you have just invaded and declare that land, yours! There is no longer any "land grabbing" in the game. With that, also goes the large hits as well. If you want land quicker then you need to GA someone for a much smaller piece of land and take the chance of an all out war as there are no longer and "legal" attacks. You only gain the land with this attack. You will not get buildings or anything else too.

Air Attack - This is Jets/Bombers VS Jets/Sams. This attack destroys buildings, population and lowers readiness of the enemies forces. This lowers readiness at a random rate of 1-4 per attack. The minimum amount of readiness of the enemy has been lowered to 10%, which means you can lower their readiness even further than our current version.

Naval Attack - This is Ships VS Ships. This attack destroys military units and lowers readiness. With this attack the readiness is lowered at a random rate of 1-8 per attack.

Turns - It will still be 5 turns out of war and 2 turns while at war per attack.

Expanding - If you wish to not risk war you can explore for more land. This has been increased and will be adjust as needed.

Start Up Turns - Each state will now start out with 300 turns (up from 200). This includes restarts.

Max Turns - The max amount of turns one can have before they roll over to stored turns is 400.

Protection - Each state will leave protection at 300 turns (up from 200)

Science Production - This has been increased. Techers will now produce more science per turn.

Science Costs - The price of science has just gone up by 200.00 per science. With production higher and prices higher, it will help this strat.

Spies - Strength has been lowered, Prices have been lowered and production has been increased per turn. The prices of spies was outrageous compared to the capabilities of them.

Infantry - Strength has been lowered.

Tanks - Prices have been lowered, production has been increased.

Bombers - Prices have been lowered, production has been increased.

Ships - Prices have been lowered, production has been increased.

We needed to make sure units were more attractive but yet make it so indy's didn't lose on the deal. This is why production has been increased per turn. This will either offset the loss or equal it out. Tweaks will be made as needed.

The theme of the game will remain the same. It's a war game. If you want peace then play nice and use diplomacy. If you want to kill everything in sight then best of luck to you. Each state can increase it's land, but now it's not as simple as stocking 300 billion infantry and winning each attack. If you GA someone for land you better have other units to back you up as they can deploy new attacks to mess your state up.

For the first time ever war actually has more advantages than just killing. Now when you kill someone you are actually taking the land away from them instead of just killing it and it vanishing into thin air. Diplomacy will be needed more than ever. You will actually have to put some thought into winning the game. Now you will have to have strategic moves in order to avoid an all out war. Leaders will have to pick their members more carefully as now, having a rogue state could be costly.

I'll implement the new version at the start of next set. We will play a set with it and see how it goes. If all is well then it will be fully released in January 2013.

I think the most exciting part for me is, we are all starting on the same page now. None of our old styles will work with this new version. Each of us will now have to learn a new way.... And....... possibly have to really start interacting with other members. Imagine that!!!

Post your comments/questions but remember that it's a holiday weekend and well, I won't be all that active :)

is it just me who can't see this, but how do we kill people? Also, why not, isntead of increasing maximum price of science, increase the minimum price isntead? or both? it has one of the largest price ranges in the game! can be a total dud if someone massive undercuts you adn you dont want to withdraw from PM!

do we still GA population or BR land to get kills as before?

Mr President
11-21-2012, 19:18
The min prices were adjusted as well. I can't change the max without changing the min. As for killing, good point. I did forget to mention how that works.

You can kill by GA, where you occupy all of the land. You can also kill by AR where it destroys buildings and population. You can also kill via spy missions as normal. However, I would love to revamp the spies and missions but I don't think I'll have the time to get that done. So that might be one of the first V2 updates after the first of the year.

Divine Intervention
11-21-2012, 19:37
The min prices were adjusted as well. I can't change the max without changing the min. As for killing, good point. I did forget to mention how that works.

You can kill by GA, where you occupy all of the land. You can also kill by AR where it destroys buildings and population. You can also kill via spy missions as normal. However, I would love to revamp the spies and missions but I don't think I'll have the time to get that done. So that might be one of the first V2 updates after the first of the year.

Cool. Im not quite sure what changes in terms of peoples propensity to hoard though. Infantry still seems to be the unit of choice to gain land and then if you're at risk towards BR/AA, well isn't that how its the case now if you hoard? Wont GA simply become the new SA?

also, are the number of attacks needed to destroy all land / kill all population still same levels as they are in current version for purposes of killing states?

Mr President
11-21-2012, 21:49
Infantry hoarding now doesn't really come with a threat cause we have a legal way to gain land. Making it so taking land from others is an act of war changes the game play. Now if people are lazy and allow GA's to become the new SA then that is their bad. Although, those looking for the big grabs will be disappointed as all of the GB formula has been removed.

Yes the same calcs used in the current BR will be the same for the new GA. So as you see, gaining land will take some time and thought. The winner will not be decided 3 days after the set starts.

MAGGIO
11-21-2012, 22:40
just to clarify do you gain anything from an air attack?

Bright
11-22-2012, 00:53
I'm pumped for next set- I was considering a quiet retirement after this round because it was stale and predictable with such a small playerbase, but this is going to be great. Nations will be even more important now that people will have to watch their backs if they want to grab lots of land from others. It'll be interesting to see how far unwritten rules get people in this version of the game...or if the EURO retal policy will be king.

heyneken
11-22-2012, 03:10
Mr P, what do you excactly mean by "all of the GB formula has been removed"?

DBozMen
11-22-2012, 05:03
I'm in!

And great changes Mr. P!

But I wonder now you changed the prices. The BM prices of ships compared to the networth they gave they are cheaper in the current game then buying infantry near the end of the set. But if you lowered the prices of ships, shouldn't you lower their networth aswell?

Gr,

Dennis

Scav
11-22-2012, 07:32
let me digest this for a bit...

SA = gone
GA will now take land but no buildings (a weakened SA basicly)
AR/BR still destroys land like it is atm.
Spy kill will not only kill the state, but add the land to your state?

will GA get you more land than SA did (say SA got you 100 land and 50 buildings, will GA get you 100 land or boosted towards 150?)
On the other hand you state that GB prot is gone. so repeated hitting on 1 state will keep giving you a decent percentage of land regardless if someone has been hit 10, 20 or 100 times allready. Basicly, if a state is bigger than you you will allways have good gains.

I expect jets / bombers to lose most of their value as their is little point in bombing the land to pieces if you can gain it through GA. the lowering of rdy doesn't remedy this as ships are still 2,5x stronger in dropping rdy'ness. not to mention ships still seem to take out inf / tanks as well. so the focus will likely shift a bit to earlier hoarding of ships, apart from hoarding inf.

It might be wise to change the effect of AR/BR runs by adding damage to inf/tanks or all units if succesfull in order to keep jets/bombers a viable unit.

BB
11-22-2012, 10:11
This should be ineresting

Hedge
11-22-2012, 12:17
intresting

MellonColly
11-22-2012, 21:09
We still need to do something for techer though. It's not a viable strat in the last ~5 days of the set because most nations have tech maxed or close to max and a .01 percent change in tech isn't worth it. The changes will help a bit but I still see this problem with it.

Mr President
11-22-2012, 22:02
just to clarify do you gain anything from an air attack? The air attacks destroys building and population. You do not gain the buildings you destroy (although this may change as it might be cool) but you can kill a state using this attack.
Mr P, what do you excactly mean by "all of the GB formula has been removed"? There is no land grab formula like before so there is no GB protection formula needed. Basically when you GA a state it will be just like now when you BR a state. You will gain a small portion of land. The amount drops like it does in BR now but it does not count the amount of times you have been hit.
I'm in! And great changes Mr. P! But I wonder now you changed the prices. The BM prices of ships compared to the networth they gave they are cheaper in the current game then buying infantry near the end of the set. But if you lowered the prices of ships, shouldn't you lower their networth aswell? Gr, Dennis I was going to lower networths but I wanted to give it a try as is. I'm certain we will have to tweak some which is why I'm calling the december set a "test" set. My thought is, lower the price, keep the net and hope that other units are used more often.
let me digest this for a bit... SA = gone GA will now take land but no buildings (a weakened SA basicly) AR/BR still destroys land like it is atm. Spy kill will not only kill the state, but add the land to your state? will GA get you more land than SA did (say SA got you 100 land and 50 buildings, will GA get you 100 land or boosted towards 150?) On the other hand you state that GB prot is gone. so repeated hitting on 1 state will keep giving you a decent percentage of land regardless if someone has been hit 10, 20 or 100 times allready. Basicly, if a state is bigger than you you will allways have good gains. I expect jets / bombers to lose most of their value as their is little point in bombing the land to pieces if you can gain it through GA. the lowering of rdy doesn't remedy this as ships are still 2,5x stronger in dropping rdy'ness. not to mention ships still seem to take out inf / tanks as well. so the focus will likely shift a bit to earlier hoarding of ships, apart from hoarding inf. It might be wise to change the effect of AR/BR runs by adding damage to inf/tanks or all units if succesfull in order to keep jets/bombers a viable unit. Yes SA is gone and yea you could say that the GA is a weakened SA except, it's a much weaker SA. The AR will only destroy buildings and pop. It will not add the land/buildings or pop to your state like the GA will. No you will not get more land in GA then you did with the current SA. We have removed land grabbing and made it so if you want the land then you either need to explore for it, war for it or be sneaky and invade with the hopes of not being caught. Having the Air Attack destroy inf/tanks isn't a bad idea. We'll make changes as needed but we need a place to start.
We still need to do something for techer though. It's not a viable strat in the last ~5 days of the set because most nations have tech maxed or close to max and a .01 percent change in tech isn't worth it. The changes will help a bit but I still see this problem with it. Agreed and I have some ideas for the near future to help this. To early to go into it now though.

SkyCat
11-22-2012, 22:11
omg those changes are retarded, sorry but atm best grabber (or sometimes also a warrior) wins, but with this new stats everyone has same expand-expand-expand (go stocking?) or make war and start taking land - and got killed(?)! also under what formula you take land with ga? like with air attack atm? this dont give you not much land but rape you and your enemy army if you actually wanna get some ok amound of land... anyway this is not much! grabbing, waiting for grabs to drop etc are been one of them main things in this game atm that dif avg and best players.... howeve i like that idea that land will be conquired not destroied - when you go for kill!!!

with those changes i cant actually see that skill can win, but something between luck/politics(/stocking)/whatever else, and game has been winned with 3 days? this game is 50b bank nowdays (i think) it should be like stockers dream (and if nobody dont know how to stock then sorry!),

there was also pointed out about science issues i agree that there should be some way how there would be still need after science in the end of set, like sciences will be used in dev center (-5% per day, per turns used, some turns used/total mambo jambo ... whatever....) so there would be need after new science even last day in set....

if local time would not be 4am (and im so tired after reading 40 pages some science text in english and writing review about it for university) i would log in and delete my state as i just started to remeber how fun this game can be and im still remebering quite ok how to play while there some new things (like missiles and something was more i think)

Top12Gun
11-23-2012, 01:31
I actually agree with quite a bit that SkyCat has said. There needs to be some kind of attack that yields a worthwhile amount of land, otherwise all that will be accomplished by this will be expanding being the primary method of gaining land (which would completely circumvent all the measures taken to increase wars.) There needs to be some clear advantage to attacking for land, vs. expanding, or it simply won't happen.

This does also level the playing field in a way I don't like. I remember the first set I played, I joined Sky. And something I noticed over the next couple sets was that Kris was online more than anyone else, waiting for grabs, and investing time in the game. I think there should be incentive to spend more time than 20 minutes a day expanding and buying/selling. As I see it, any reason to spend more time online like Kris vs. bums like me who spent maybe 20 minutes a day goes out the window, at least partially, along with the GB formulae. Come up with a way for one's place to be more commensurate to time spent or risk losing top players who don't like scrubs like me competing with little to no work.

Scav
11-23-2012, 04:04
exapanding will be an issue. Especially early on expanding will net you ~150-200 land in 5 turns while a GA if the formula is anyway similar to BR/AR will get you ~25 land in the same 5 turns. yes you could declare war out of the starting blocks, but even at ~25 land in 2 turns expanding will be more powerfull.
Even at 2k land, a BR style GA attack will only get you 28 land on avarage per 5 turns. the point where GA approach the gains of exploring = 9k land (9k * 1.4% = ~ 126 land per 5 turns)

there are a number of options to change this :

1) increase GA gains
2) lower turns for GA
3) lower land on expanding
4) make GA gains / Expanding gains dependant on either own size or time in set
5) put a max expansion cap in place for the server (will hurt late starters)
6) put a max expansion cap in place per state
7) start with a lot more land

Divine Intervention
11-23-2012, 05:02
Scav is right....the whole element of being a skilled land grabber which differentiates the winners from the rest is gone. No one wins with 3 days into set. Thats what too early to jump. If someone wins after 3 days its simply because no one else is bothering. Person whos #1 on day 3 is the person who will be giving the skilled netter his 3-4k land grab when he jumps....

blaa
11-23-2012, 07:44
Here's my view on why the winner is clear after only few days.
First the default expanding was like 30 to like 15 on average. Then it got raised to 45 to 30 on average. At first the winning 'jump' came like on the 6th or 7th day, in the recent sets on 3rd or 4th day. Is there a correlation?

I believe there is (was). Netters (those who actively waited for expanders) can get land much more easily, can get tech and army much more easily (even the less active players help the NA/tech a lot more), because while getting land was made easier, getting tech and na wasn't made any more difficult. So if you have full tech and you can get a lot of land, then of course, you jump as fast as possible. There were states with 20k land on day 4 or day 5. Of course they will break away.

Meanwhile, stockers or alternative strategies were offered no relief. Only the netters (jumpers). If you stock in the bottom, you still need a lot land, even though you have no army upkeep, the topstates will be uncatchable if they have so much land. But if you are a stocking state with a lot of land, you will lose a lot of land...

I hope the old game remains somewhere (different server, chaos rules maybe?). Reduce expanding, tweak the GB formula, I think I remember that in the old GB formula you didn't get shitload of land just because you had little land and enemy had a lot of land, like you do now.

I won't judge on the new game, it seems kinda random to me, but let's see what comes out of it.

MAGGIO
11-23-2012, 11:21
i would like to see a player gain something from each different type of attack whether that be land, units, or buildings.

it will take a few sets to settle in. next set will be a blood bath, so the real test will be in JAN.

Top12Gun
11-23-2012, 14:23
exapanding will be an issue. Especially early on expanding will net you ~150-200 land in 5 turns while a GA if the formula is anyway similar to BR/AR will get you ~25 land in the same 5 turns. yes you could declare war out of the starting blocks, but even at ~25 land in 2 turns expanding will be more powerfull.
Even at 2k land, a BR style GA attack will only get you 28 land on avarage per 5 turns. the point where GA approach the gains of exploring = 9k land (9k * 1.4% = ~ 126 land per 5 turns)

there are a number of options to change this :

1) increase GA gains
2) lower turns for GA
3) lower land on expanding
4) make GA gains / Expanding gains dependant on either own size or time in set
5) put a max expansion cap in place for the server (will hurt late starters)
6) put a max expansion cap in place per state
7) start with a lot more land

I support this option.


Scav is right....the whole element of being a skilled land grabber which differentiates the winners from the rest is gone. No one wins with 3 days into set. Thats what too early to jump. If someone wins after 3 days its simply because no one else is bothering. Person whos #1 on day 3 is the person who will be giving the skilled netter his 3-4k land grab when he jumps....

This. Not to mention the fact that when you remove both the GB formula and any benefits of grabbing over expanding, you remove a lot of what sets people like Kris apart from people like me. And that's a bad thing. Too much of a level playing field with little skill based opportunity for the better players to place better will be a detriment to the game, not an upgrade.


Here's my view on why the winner is clear after only few days.
First the default expanding was like 30 to like 15 on average. Then it got raised to 45 to 30 on average. At first the winning 'jump' came like on the 6th or 7th day, in the recent sets on 3rd or 4th day. Is there a correlation?

I believe there is (was). Netters (those who actively waited for expanders) can get land much more easily, can get tech and army much more easily (even the less active players help the NA/tech a lot more), because while getting land was made easier, getting tech and na wasn't made any more difficult. So if you have full tech and you can get a lot of land, then of course, you jump as fast as possible. There were states with 20k land on day 4 or day 5. Of course they will break away.

Meanwhile, stockers or alternative strategies were offered no relief. Only the netters (jumpers). If you stock in the bottom, you still need a lot land, even though you have no army upkeep, the topstates will be uncatchable if they have so much land. But if you are a stocking state with a lot of land, you will lose a lot of land...

I hope the old game remains somewhere (different server, chaos rules maybe?). Reduce expanding, tweak the GB formula, I think I remember that in the old GB formula you didn't get shitload of land just because you had little land and enemy had a lot of land, like you do now.

I won't judge on the new game, it seems kinda random to me, but let's see what comes out of it.

blaa is right in almost every way..........

SkyCat
11-23-2012, 15:08
well i havent played like forever, but let i guess last year basically every set has been winning indy? maybe there would be needed some stronger indy nerf to make sure they can get so much power in start of set when there its almost impossible to chalenge them as farmer cant sell food, casher issues i that in order to get cash fast you need to cash or you lost every turn to indy player a lot from your production - or if you cash-cash indys simply got so much more land that they own you with it.... science maybe - but its too much a wildcard anyway

Mr President
11-23-2012, 19:41
Lol you haven't even tried it yet and you're saying it won't work. First - this is just as starting point. Of course we will have to adjust and change things as we move forward. Some are complaining about just expanding all set, well what do you think happens now? I could count the amount of grabs I have made the last 5 sets on one hand and I know many others could too. The average time people spend on here is 4 minutes. I would love to increase it and have tried many times but after a while you either continue to fight a losing battle or you make some changes. Its time for a change.

The only people who complain about making the playing field even are the few who have mastered the game and take first each set they play. I totally agree that the ones who spend the time should reap the rewards however 1% does this. So do we continue the same path for the 1% or change things up so the other 99% has some chances as well?

I have received several messages saying how they were leaving the game but they saw this new change and are very excited to play again.

I really have no idea if this will work out or not but I do know that I personally was getting very bored with the game. If I was getting bored I can't imagine what others were feeling. Really what do we have to lose? People might leave and not play? Newsflash, it happened long before this change and without this change I highly doubt the game would have made it another year.

Lets give this a shot. Change it when we need too and see what happens. I can always put the old game back up anytime. But the game is not growing. No growth, no game!

You all get 200 more active members and i'll host any version you want.

kitoy
11-23-2012, 21:03
seems interesting, so i'll give it a shot.. though i hate learning new things, that's why i didn't bother playing another game.. :p

and MrP, if possible, this:


I hope the old game remains somewhere (different server, chaos rules maybe?). Reduce expanding, tweak the GB formula, I think I remember that in the old GB formula you didn't get shitload of land just because you had little land and enemy had a lot of land, like you do now.

MAGGIO
11-23-2012, 21:14
LOL @ Mr. P, 200 active lol

Now this game is more about activity rather than LG calculations

SkyCat
11-24-2012, 10:32
expanding need a lot of activty?

things about this game that make it both so intresting and make getting new players hand and play it well when you dont waste much time is that this is quite complex, simple but same time complex...

however making it next dump click-click-click browser based game would be :S

however who im to talk anyway, havent played like forever and probably will not after that set as what i read says that its not game i loved anymore then

Mr President
11-24-2012, 11:38
Exactly my point. You haven't played in forever but the game is suppose to stay the same in hopes you one day come back? Who knows maybe by the time you come back the old version will be back.. Or maybe there would be a new version that has thousands of members. Or maybe just nothing at all.

MAGGIO
11-24-2012, 12:20
however who im to talk anyway, havent played like forever and probably will not after that set as what i read says that its not game i loved anymore then

this fool just intelled me this morning lol

SkyCat
11-24-2012, 13:23
this fool just intelled me this morning lol

isint it a bit offtopic in here? ::topic::

however this fool is -2500+ turns and have already both way more land and net than you....



21 SkyCat(#169) [ICN] 37.094 $68.144.996 502 *

37 MAGGIO(#8) [DEAD] 23.192 $32.628.851 489 -

fool indeed

SkyCat
11-24-2012, 13:28
however a serious note, havent you think to make for example mobile interface or something for this game to get more players, few browser based games have nice views to play them in mobile phones.... just idea ofc

this nerf to make game more easy and hopefully get more players just seems strange....

Hedge
11-24-2012, 17:56
here is my 2 cents
first of all change is what make games like this one intresting so why not make changes?

now what i see in these changes is first of all going back to basics of this game called nation wars, what will happen is that since you now as i understand it will risk war as a consuqence of any landgrabing.

you will need to first of all work togeather as a group in your nation more actively then currently.
to be sucessfull in grabbing you will have to interact with other nations thru FA talks.
there might be retal policys.
there might be more wars so activeity might go up and as a result maybe more recruiting.
i see no problems with these changes except that they might have to be tweaked and fixed abit as we go, but then again when was the last time you bought a windows version bug free? ;)

MAGGIO
11-24-2012, 21:33
however a serious note, havent you think to make for example mobile interface or something for this game to get more players, few browser based games have nice views to play them in mobile phones.... just idea ofc


YES! Some of the apps i have on my phone are mear mobile websites after some intro screens. WE HAVE TO GO MOBILE or its just a matter of time.

KelpKris
11-25-2012, 00:09
For the first time ever war actually has more advantages than just killing. Now when you kill someone you are actually taking the land away from them instead of just killing it and it vanishing into thin air. Diplomacy will be needed more than ever. You will actually have to put some thought into winning the game. Now you will have to have strategic moves in order to avoid an all out war. Leaders will have to pick their members more carefully as now, having a rogue state could be costly.
Not entirely true. I think you could end up with more land trough land-dropping plus if it wouldn't be so easy to kill or cripple a state, you could also improve your state by grabbing the attacked state right after it's readiness has been lowered.
And one other thing - I find it odd you to say that from now on I would have to put some thought into winning - like if I won being a headless chicken so far.


Cool. Im not quite sure what changes in terms of peoples propensity to hoard though. Infantry still seems to be the unit of choice to gain land and then if you're at risk towards BR/AA, well isn't that how its the case now if you hoard? Wont GA simply become the new SA?
Exactly what I thought. The unit that can get you the most land with lowest cost shall be hoarded. I think it was about 2 or 3 years ago when for a few sets guys in top had 1-1.5G infantry and almost no other defense. Btw the last time I made some calculations tanks seemed to be better unit than infantry when the food price would be over 95 or something like that. I made those calculations from indy's perspective only and I haven't checked what tweaks have been made meanwhile, though I'm 99.9% sure if there are any tweaks, they are pro tanks.


Yes SA is gone and yea you could say that the GA is a weakened SA except, it's a much weaker SA. The AR will only destroy buildings and pop. It will not add the land/buildings or pop to your state like the GA will. No you will not get more land in GA then you did with the current SA. We have removed land grabbing and made it so if you want the land then you either need to explore for it, war for it or be sneaky and invade with the hopes of not being caught.
I would further tweak the "Obtain spy info". 24h is too long time for a respectable state to find out who hit him.

One way to increase the importance of science is to drastically increase the amount of science needed for mid and max levels. Make the science needed for the last 0.05% account for 25%-30% in the future. And increase the amount of science needed for max level. Let me demonstrate:
348
This is one option. But the general idea would be to make the science level drop 20-30% like it now drops 0.05-1%. And increasing the amount needed for max level would insure that nations would have to invest more cash into science.


now what i see in these changes is first of all going back to basics of this game called nation wars, what will happen is that since you now as i understand it will risk war as a consuqence of any landgrabing.
That's why I found the name of Estonian version much more fitting: Domination - you don't need to war to dominate. And there were no debates how the name of the game should dictate the way you played.


This is your game Mr P, do whatever you like. Some like the changes while others don't. And while I might not be not much active anymore, at least I've given my small contribution to keep this game up trough premium.

Mr President
11-25-2012, 19:20
Thanks, Kris. You have done more than just purchase a premium. As I have stated, I don't know if this change will work or not. But I do feel its worth trying. With the game being how its been the past couple of years we might as well try something new and see what happens. Game can always go back to normal if needed.

Going mobile costs a lot of money and time and right now we really don't have either.

MAGGIO
11-25-2012, 23:11
Going mobile costs a lot of money and time and right now we really don't have either. Really? I would just think time...

SkyCat
11-26-2012, 07:10
i have to agree that its mostly time, what is needed in here is new skin that is optimized for small screens so this can be used nice in mobile phones

and later if this work nice there can be done some hacky-hacky and make some andropid/iphone/whatever app that is basically a embed browser that shows that page inside himself but woilla.... we have apps everywhere and they work all the same :D

Hedge
11-26-2012, 10:51
what i was refering to kris wasnt the war part of the name but rather the nation part as haveing an active and well run nation might actually become important from now on as you might have to focus on anational strategy and all that ;)
one can argue that apparently you guys know something that mr p doesnt and thus arguebly one can ask if you would like to take responseability of makeing this app thingy happen as mr p might not have the time required ?

MAGGIO
11-26-2012, 17:34
i have to agree that its mostly time, what is needed in here is new skin that is optimized for small screens so this can be used nice in mobile phones

and later if this work nice there can be done some hacky-hacky and make some andropid/iphone/whatever app that is basically a embed browser that shows that page inside himself but woilla.... we have apps everywhere and they work all the same :D

agreed.. the maryland DNR app is just a mobile sized site, and so is some of my other fishing apps. we just need to strip down some of the options in game to make it a little easier to navigate.

Top12Gun
11-27-2012, 17:27
agreed.. the maryland DNR app is just a mobile sized site, and so is some of my other fishing apps. we just need to strip down some of the options in game to make it a little easier to navigate.

Drop down menus would simplify things a ton for the app.

Mr President
11-28-2012, 16:27
After reviewing some of the suggestions I have made a couple of changes.

GA will take more land than the current BR attack did.

AA (Air Assault) Will now destroy Inf and Tanks (along with buildings) at a higher rate than the NA (Naval Assault) will, however, it will not lower readiness at all. You will still use ships to lower readiness and also kill inf / tanks at a lower %.

I will make the changes in the original post.

Mr President
11-28-2012, 16:52
Also, I have decided to keep the bots in this set so we have some practice targets and not risk war by trying out the new attacks. However, Bots are monitored and any abuse to them will result in bad bad things for you :)

MAGGIO
11-28-2012, 17:50
Drop down menus would simplify things a ton for the app.

http://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/mobile/v2/index.asp

this site works REAL well on my phone. Its not an app but a stripped down mobile version of the full site. It could still be "Sold" at the app store for FREE, but as you see it is not technically an app.

Scav
11-29-2012, 04:19
are the GA gains and inf/tank losses on BR a fixed % like the land loss on BR (1,4% with a min of 20~25)?

Scav
11-29-2012, 08:21
I would urge mr. P. to enforce GDN protection for new players, makeing it opt out instead of the old opt in. As i see things, with SA gone and land comeing from GA/spy/expanding, small nations (1-5 members) or non nation states will be farmed into non existance with near constant declarations on them in order to provide cheaper land (2 turn hits instead of 5 turn hits). There is a real danger here to kill of new members before they manage to get in a nation that offers some protection.

ukurasmus
11-29-2012, 15:28
I'm quite neutral about the v2.0. The distinction between n0lifers and n00bz has been removed and NW gaining probably is slower than what it used to be.

Another thing is how to get this concept to work well. You need to consider some things here. When will people go for attacks:

conquest is better than expansion
desire to eliminate competition
retaliation


For the first I see following requirements:

land per turn in conquest > land per turn for expanding
land gain compensates army(NW!) losses suffered in war


These requirements are both actually satisfied at some point in the game if you declare war.
Example: target is 20k land state and one GA takes 1.4% of land, with a minimum of 25
This takes all together 243 attacks meaning 486 turns to get a kill and all the land. This leaves the attackers with an average of 41.2 land per turn. Considering all the losses I personally wouldn't try attacks any before the 25 land per turn average has come in expanding. You just lose too much army compared to the land gained and make yourself a target for those who didn't start warring so early on.

I tend to assume that the principality seen in the example will determine how the game will be played. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But it is important to make sure this attack advantage starts as soon as desired. Mr President, have you done the math here? If not then I think you should calculate on current setup, for how long will it take before states get to that point and adjust the settings so that it would make sense to start a war before the last day of set, preferrably to as early in the set as possible to let the players shape out the mechanics ;)

Ok, I wanted to cover some more ground regarding the update, but I've run out of time now. Anyway, I'm glad to see some changes here and hope that it will work out well for the game. :)

MAGGIO
11-29-2012, 16:46
I dont think even Mr. P knows what exactly is going to happen. There is a lot of unanswered questions but now that theses comments are coming out because THIS IS going to happen. I think that expanding after a certain amount of land should be next to worthless for that very point you just made about military losses vs. expanding.

Mr President
11-29-2012, 17:25
Maggio is right, I have no idea what is going to happen. I could have everything perfectly panned out and ti completely flop.. Who knows... The change has been made, the next will start with the above changes and we will tweak as needed. That is why I am doing this in december. It will give us a month to try and then tweak.

The point that I really don't think most of you are getting is, without drastic changes, the game will go down. Yes the old way was pretty challenging, but it didn't attract new people or keep many existing. It's the same people playing, the same people winning and the same people warring. How long do you seriously think it was going to last. My schedule is 150% full and I am losing interest in keeping the game around with the low member count we have. It's not really worth the time or money that goes into the game when nothing changes.

I'm hoping the change will spark interest with everyone again. Those of you who are against this, I really don't know what to tell you other than, might as well give this change a fair shake cause we really really really need more people and activity to increase.

grumpy
12-01-2012, 01:08
Personally I like the new change. especially the " no land grabbing" part without starting a war. so all of you land mongrels out there better rethink your strategy on just EXPLORING.

Mr President
12-02-2012, 19:55
Not even a full days test and look what you guys are saying. Thanks for the open minds and for giving it a fair chance.

Tomorrow I will reset the game to the original version and then we'll play it till the money runs out, which will be April/may. I don't need this shit.

Oh yea and no shit it needs tweaking. Pretty sure I said that in every **** post I made about the change.

Top12Gun
12-02-2012, 20:32
Not even a full days test and look what you guys are saying. Thanks for the open minds and for giving it a fair chance.

Tomorrow I will reset the game to the original version and then we'll play it till the money runs out, which will be April/may. I don't need this shit.

Oh yea and no shit it needs tweaking. Pretty sure I said that in every **** post I made about the change.

I sense.... :thinking: a ragepost!!

MellonColly
12-02-2012, 21:45
Not even a full days test and look what you guys are saying. Thanks for the open minds and for giving it a fair chance.

Tomorrow I will reset the game to the original version and then we'll play it till the money runs out, which will be April/may. I don't need this shit.

Oh yea and no shit it needs tweaking. Pretty sure I said that in every **** post I made about the change.

Mr. P! Go take a deep breath and come back. Maybe even delete your post too.

So there were a few mistakes in the code. I don't see why we had to give up because of that.

Bright
12-02-2012, 21:57
It's a beta for a reason. I get that there are glitches in the code and whatnot, but people basically quitting within the first day isn't fair to the work Mr. P put into this new release at all. I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to rush it in time for the holidays as a present to the community of sorts...only to receive a reception like this. I hope he does take a step back before giving up on the game, but if he rolls back the game to the original and observes radio silence, I can't blame him one bit.

Top12Gun
12-02-2012, 23:59
Mr. P! Go take a deep breath and come back. Maybe even delete your post too.

Agree. Chill out. People like to complain. Realize that, and also realize that listening in to a fickle mass ruins things. Look at the Cleveland Browns. They've been trying to please their fans in big decisions since the beginning of their downturn, and see where they are?? Run the game, and don't let this bother you. Tweak as needed, listen to suggestions, and ignore unproductive ****ing.


I hope he does take a step back before giving up on the game, but if he rolls back the game to the original and observes radio silence, I can't blame him one bit.

QFEing this, although I will be disappointed if he shows this little restraint.......

DevilDog
12-03-2012, 00:35
Not even a full days test and look what you guys are saying. Thanks for the open minds and for giving it a fair chance.

Tomorrow I will reset the game to the original version and then we'll play it till the money runs out, which will be April/may. I don't need this shit.

Oh yea and no shit it needs tweaking. Pretty sure I said that in every **** post I made about the change.

Nah...no need to roll the game back. Glitches were expected and it's understood by most that time will be needed to fix them once identified. You did the right thing by trying to make improvements (fix) to the game so don't give up so soon just because a few are barking.

Crimson Shadow
12-03-2012, 02:52
Nah...no need to roll the game back.

Might need to roll it back after a quadrillion NW haha.

1 The Butcher(#155) 7.511 $434.685.079.950.649.984 500 -

Hedge
12-03-2012, 06:27
Not even a full days test and look what you guys are saying. Thanks for the open minds and for giving it a fair chance.

Tomorrow I will reset the game to the original version and then we'll play it till the money runs out, which will be April/may. I don't need this shit.

Oh yea and no shit it needs tweaking. Pretty sure I said that in every **** post I made about the change.
i like the changes this is the most fun i have had in a game for a long while ;)

Mr President
12-03-2012, 11:32
Again, there is a reason I do not log in after I have consumed a few beverages. But please don't let that diminish the weight of my message. Seriously people, I understand that things can be frustrating when not working correctly but the posts people were making were ridiculous. I clearly stated that there were going to be issues. This happens when you can't fully test something. I suggested we make a test server but most said no just load it up and we'll tweak as we go, so I did.

The market bug was a simple error. I forgot to change the values from food and science when the missiles were deleted. Going off and exploiting the bug like crazy was ridiculous as well. As soon as you found it all you needed to do was send me a message and then leave it alone till it was fixed. Doing what you did does not help anything. It really created even more tension that was needed. Do it again and I'll ban you for life.

This is a test set and I'll make changes all through the set. I am not waiting till January to make changes. It was the whole reason for making December a test set. The GA value has been changed and soon, so will the unit values.

I'm one guy doing the best I can. A little patience on your part would be greatly appreciated.

heyneken
12-03-2012, 12:15
Again, there is a reason I do not log in after I have consumed a few beverages. But please don't let that diminish the weight of my message. Seriously people, I understand that things can be frustrating when not working correctly but the posts people were making were ridiculous. I clearly stated that there were going to be issues. This happens when you can't fully test something. I suggested we make a test server but most said no just load it up and we'll tweak as we go, so I did.

The market bug was a simple error. I forgot to change the values from food and science when the missiles were deleted. Going off and exploiting the bug like crazy was ridiculous as well. As soon as you found it all you needed to do was send me a message and then leave it alone till it was fixed. Doing what you did does not help anything. It really created even more tension that was needed. Do it again and I'll ban you for life.

This is a test set and I'll make changes all through the set. I am not waiting till January to make changes. It was the whole reason for making December a test set. The GA value has been changed and soon, so will the unit values.

I'm one guy doing the best I can. A little patience on your part would be greatly appreciated.

Great work. I'd like the GB protection to be brought back, because at the moment it will be impossible for stockers to succeed. It doesn't have to be exactly the same way as it was, but without it the game is just one bigass mayhem.

My loosely thought out idea: keep the 3 attacks + bring back SA and gb with it, but decrease the amount of land gain from SA. This will bring back the best part of the previous version and add another dimension, which is that people will go to war more often and for the right reason - they get land for 2 turns and can at the same time effectively war/kill opponents.

MellonColly
12-03-2012, 12:18
I like that idea from heyne.

As it stands now you can pretty much land rape any state. So yes stockers can do nothing to keep land up

Edit : Also thank you Mr. P :)

Mr President
12-03-2012, 12:22
That idea is possible. This is what a lot of people are not understanding. With making a change like this to the game, it can bring a lot of cool new things to the game. If the SA did come back the grab would have to be less and the stupid rules that go along with SA would have to go as well. But we'll see. We just keep working and growing the new version to what we want it to be.

heyneken
12-03-2012, 12:24
Or keep the 3 attacks, but outside war, GA acts like SA (that is, there is GB), but when war is declared, states attacked with GA lose their GB....or something like that.

Top12Gun
12-03-2012, 14:05
Great work. I'd like the GB protection to be brought back, because at the moment it will be impossible for stockers to succeed. It doesn't have to be exactly the same way as it was, but without it the game is just one bigass mayhem.

My loosely thought out idea: keep the 3 attacks + bring back SA and gb with it, but decrease the amount of land gain from SA. This will bring back the best part of the previous version and add another dimension, which is that people will go to war more often and for the right reason - they get land for 2 turns and can at the same time effectively war/kill opponents.

The first intelligent thing I've ever heard heyneken say. :P. I like this a lot, and I would simply keep the "Any kind of hit = war" in order to make wars more frequent.


Or keep the 3 attacks, but outside war, GA acts like SA (that is, there is GB), but when war is declared, states attacked with GA lose their GB....or something like that.

I'm not sure that gains from SA need to be decreased, SA just needs to be an automatic declaration of war...

Mr President
12-03-2012, 14:32
I like the idea of having a "peace time" attack, ie SA. And I think with keeping the land you get for GA, wars would be more popular. But I do think if that change is made, the land you get from SA needs to be chopped some. If we keep the SA as high as it is then warring would still not be that popular as it's easier to gain land from SA.

We need to come up with a perk for both. Something that makes it worthy of going to war but then also worthy of not going to war.

KelpKris
12-03-2012, 14:34
Great work. I'd like the GB protection to be brought back, because at the moment it will be impossible for stockers to succeed. It doesn't have to be exactly the same way as it was, but without it the game is just one bigass mayhem.

My loosely thought out idea: keep the 3 attacks + bring back SA and gb with it, but decrease the amount of land gain from SA. This will bring back the best part of the previous version and add another dimension, which is that people will go to war more often and for the right reason - they get land for 2 turns and can at the same time effectively war/kill opponents.
Depending on how much mr. P tweaked the GA I can see it becoming a new SA. For that matter, as long as there is an attack that can bring you land it's all cool. Thing is almost all grabs pay themselves off eventually, even if you get 10 more land than by expanding. If you no longer can get 2-3k grabs when making the jump it just means it will take longer to safely get that top spot. If you're getting 500-1000 land from say 20k land state, it should be enough.

Scav
12-03-2012, 14:53
well the easiest way to achieve that would be to make the SA a % of the enemies land, just like the GA is now, instead of makeing it depend on the relative size of the opponent like it used to be. if you then set the fixed % for SA lower than the fixed % for the GA, there is still an incentive to go to war. doesn't have to be much, say 0,5% or so.

Hedge
12-03-2012, 15:00
well you could also fix the "problem" in a slightly easier way the mayhem that we got now (i like it) without changeing the code or formula at all :) anyway if stockers want to be safer it is simple just join a bigger nation that will protect you. if your in a nation that first of all is active and secondly have a retal policy and can back it up then there is no issue :)

heyneken
12-03-2012, 15:08
well you could also fix the "problem" in a slightly easier way the mayhem that we got now (i like it) without changeing the code or formula at all :) anyway if stockers want to be safer it is simple just join a bigger nation that will protect you. if your in a nation that first of all is active and secondly have a retal policy and can back it up then there is no issue :)

That's the thing - there's not GB protection. Even if you're in a decent nation you will get your land stript from you. For example, I had 10k land, but then like 6 people attacked me and I lost 3,5k land. And I will lose even more and there's nothing I can do about it really, because there's no GB protection.

Mr President
12-03-2012, 15:11
I think what Hedge was implying is that if your in an a decent sized, active nation then GA's wouldn't happen to you for fear of the retal.

Mr President
12-03-2012, 15:13
Everyone should remember that this is a test round so we all are more forgiving on the GA's. If this was a real round then there would be a lot of wars. I would suspect.

When you do a GA you have to take into consideration, is the 150 land I get from this GA worth losing all of my land due to war?

heyneken
12-03-2012, 15:23
I'm not sure people will go to war if someone GA's them once or twice, because people are used to the idea that land is taken from them. Just like people are still upgrading infantry because they are used to producing/buying/upgrading infantry, although at the moment tanks are so much more useful.

Hedge
12-03-2012, 15:31
I think what Hedge was implying is that if your in an a decent sized, active nation then GA's wouldn't happen to you for fear of the retal.
indeed :)


I'm not sure people will go to war if someone GA's them once or twice, because people are used to the idea that land is taken from them. Just like people are still upgrading infantry because they are used to producing/buying/upgrading infantry, although at the moment tanks are so much more useful.

well that is of course an issue in a sense but that is a player issue there is nothing wrong with the GA system.
its the nations responseability to take a stand on what they will allow to happen to their members and how to retal things they dont accept.
why should the game be corrected just because people are lazy and inactive?

heyneken
12-03-2012, 15:36
On a sidenote, we in WANK feel that GAs take way too many CS's.

MAGGIO
12-03-2012, 15:54
I think alot of frustration comes from people trying to play the old version and then comparing the new version to the old version.

it is now a COMPLETELY new game, with way different ways of playing and competing.

As far as "stocker" is concerned it simply may not exist anymore and furthermore all strats may need to be adjusted by the player in order to be successful.

I see a lot of terms that are used with the previous version when trying to articulate points about this newer version. when you drop the SA, you also may be dropping other aspects which may or may not be a good thing, but NO ONE can say for sure since its only been a few days.

Hedge
12-03-2012, 16:02
I think alot of frustration comes from people trying to play the old version and then comparing the new version to the old version.

it is now a COMPLETELY new game, with way different ways of playing and competing.

As far as "stocker" is concerned it simply may not exist anymore and furthermore all strats may need to be adjusted by the player in order to be successful.

I see a lot of terms that are used with the previous version when trying to articulate points about this newer version. when you drop the SA, you also may be dropping other aspects which may or may not be a good thing, but NO ONE can say for sure since its only been a few days.
i still feel that my solution was the best one for the current version of the game :)

MAGGIO
12-03-2012, 16:33
I would urge mr. P. to enforce GDN protection for new players, makeing it opt out instead of the old opt in. As i see things, with SA gone and land comeing from GA/spy/expanding, small nations (1-5 members) or non nation states will be farmed into non existance with near constant declarations on them in order to provide cheaper land (2 turn hits instead of 5 turn hits). There is a real danger here to kill of new members before they manage to get in a nation that offers some protection.

1. join a bigger nation
2. recruit more players for your nation

you may be right, the days of singer player nations, and small nations may be over. this could lead to the game being a hand full of large nations which may or many not be good or bad. we dont know, but you are correct, defenseless nations and states will end up as target practice i think.

MAGGIO
12-03-2012, 21:54
I want all attacks to take something. Poor BR getting all lonely and jealous because on the GA takes land. #notfair

Not to brown nose but I do appriciate you not playing a state to dedicate more free time to the game.

Oh, and I really hope your note spreading your work load by having to update features to all the themes, that would SUCK and is not smart.

If these updates work out, and we can all figure out a new way to play, I really want to see a mobile website as the next big project, even if its a limited version. I wish I knew PHP or I would design it in ONE SECOND for free.

since we are reworking the game its a perfect opportunity to strip out old unused options so you dont have to worry about the cause and effect of all the changes.

MAGGIO
12-03-2012, 22:01
The games economy has always been the real driving force, yet no one has really commented on it. We need to keep an close eye on the PM/BM.

I am for consolidating the two into "The Market" where as all units are available at all times, but only go down in price when the economy drives the price down.

lower the BM prices slightly and make those the max price on "The Market". Keep the min price as they are now on the PM.

Make it a bit faster, meaning good go down in price much faster (not sure how fast)

We should try to find a way to make the market a more prominent feature, and more fun.

If the new server leads to more dead states which I think it will, then the market will need some adjustment. #justthrowingitoutthere

blaa
12-04-2012, 03:46
just wanted to post to show off my new signature.

PS I agree with heyneken. We are losing way too many CS way too easy. Maybe remove CS from the equation entirely?

Hedge
12-04-2012, 06:36
i've only lost 3 cs so far :)

KelpKris
12-04-2012, 09:09
I'm not sure people will go to war if someone GA's them once or twice, because people are used to the idea that land is taken from them. Just like people are still upgrading infantry because they are used to producing/buying/upgrading infantry, although at the moment tanks are so much more useful.
Old habits die hard.


1. join a bigger nation
2. recruit more players for your nation

you may be right, the days of singer player nations, and small nations may be over. this could lead to the game being a hand full of large nations which may or many not be good or bad. we dont know, but you are correct, defenseless nations and states will end up as target practice i think.
I don't think one man nations ever had their glory days. Without nations support it's extremely hard to get to top, unless there are lot's of wars and everybody in top are killed, like it has happened.


just wanted to post to show off my new signature.

PS I agree with heyneken. We are losing way too many CS way too easy. Maybe remove CS from the equation entirely?
Lowering it should do the trick.

MellonColly
12-04-2012, 11:06
inf seem way too underpowered now... :(

Mr President
12-04-2012, 11:06
Adjusted the CS loss a little. let me know if it's better.

blaa
12-04-2012, 11:11
inf seem way too underpowered now... :(
why are there 2 ground units is beyond me

-impossible to balance them, so they would:
a)be fair - one not too powerful
b)logical - so there would actually be an use for both units.

a) is simple to achieve, just make them 100% equal. then only the name would be different. But then b) would be impossible to accomplish. So I think with this playerbase, there is no need for two ground units just to have more units in the game.

While we're at it, lets remove the bombers (or jets) as well, and make it so jets (or bombers) do offensive air raids and sams protect.

Mr President
12-04-2012, 11:11
Also, what if I put a limit on how many times a state could be attacked in a 24hr period outside of war? This would help with the land loss and also suiciding and stockers..

If you want to attack the state more than 3 times in a 24hr period, you would need to declare war. Thoughts?

Mr President
12-04-2012, 11:12
why are there 2 ground units is beyond me

To go along with the 2 air units? I would love 2 sea units as well. (carriers and subs) :) But perhaps another day.

blaa
12-04-2012, 11:16
Also, what if I put a limit on how many times a state could be attacked in a 24hr period outside of war? This would help with the land loss and also suiciding and stockers..

If you want to attack the state more than 3 times in a 24hr period, you would need to declare war. Thoughts?

Or rather how many times a state can attack in total. He then would have to decide wether to lash out his all x attacks on one state or divide his x attacks on multiple states.

And why would all units should go along air units? Remove SAMs then and keep only jets and let them attack and defend.

heyneken
12-04-2012, 11:22
I like both Mr P's and blaa's suggestion. And i think we should indeed lose either tanks or infantry and bombers or jets. Makes the game more comprehensible so to say for the new people.

Hedge
12-04-2012, 11:38
Also, what if I put a limit on how many times a state could be attacked in a 24hr period outside of war? This would help with the land loss and also suiciding and stockers..

If you want to attack the state more than 3 times in a 24hr period, you would need to declare war. Thoughts? sounds good to me and yes subs would be great ;)

MAGGIO
12-04-2012, 12:22
why are there 2 ground units is beyond me

-impossible to balance them, so they would:
a)be fair - one not too powerful
b)logical - so there would actually be an use for both units.

a) is simple to achieve, just make them 100% equal. then only the name would be different. But then b) would be impossible to accomplish. So I think with this playerbase, there is no need for two ground units just to have more units in the game.

While we're at it, lets remove the bombers (or jets) as well, and make it so jets (or bombers) do offensive air raids and sams protect.

Ground Units
Air Units
Naval Units
Spies

Four total units. Remove all lables and extra units and just work with these 4. forget about adding units as there are already too many and the admins have had to severly change gameplay to FORCE the use of units when the unit itself just needed to be eliminated. K.I.S.S.


Also, what if I put a limit on how many times a state could be attacked in a 24hr period outside of war? This would help with the land loss and also suiciding and stockers..

If you want to attack the state more than 3 times in a 24hr period, you would need to declare war. Thoughts?

the whole point was to create activity so nations didnt have to "make up" reasons for war. let states have the freedom to attack whenever, whoever and how often they want.

heyneken
12-04-2012, 12:34
the whole point was to create activity so nations didnt have to "make up" reasons for war. let states have the freedom to attack whenever, whoever and how often they want.

With the GA attack taking land, there's the perfect reason to go to war. We shouldn't take away the netting-in-peacefully part of the game.

MAGGIO
12-04-2012, 13:18
limiting to triples and doubles by only allowing x number of attacks outside of war really tightens the noose on the game. are we supposed to go to war over 2 or 3 GAs?

blaa
12-04-2012, 13:26
you are supposed to go to war for #1 spot...

not to 'secure' your state from infantry hoarders keeping you out of top20.
not because someone grabbed you one too many time.

"im not smart enough to feed", then probably not smart enough to tell other people what they are supposed to do.

Scav
12-04-2012, 13:59
I dont see a reason for a cap at all. 24*6=144 turns a day. 144:5=29 + 4 ( bonus) if you don't build your land

KelpKris
12-04-2012, 15:00
why are there 2 ground units is beyond me

-impossible to balance them, so they would:
a)be fair - one not too powerful
b)logical - so there would actually be an use for both units.

a) is simple to achieve, just make them 100% equal. then only the name would be different. But then b) would be impossible to accomplish. So I think with this playerbase, there is no need for two ground units just to have more units in the game.

While we're at it, lets remove the bombers (or jets) as well, and make it so jets (or bombers) do offensive air raids and sams protect.
One possibility would make one unit better for defending and the other for attacking, like it is with AGMs, but perhaps not so extreme.

MAGGIO
12-04-2012, 16:31
you are supposed to go to war for #1 spot...

not to 'secure' your state from infantry hoarders keeping you out of top20.
not because someone grabbed you one too many time.

"im not smart enough to feed", then probably not smart enough to tell other people what they are supposed to do.

I am hoping that the new parameters allow nations who perform well during war will be rewarded with higher ranks. the old system was anti war as far as finishing higher than the entire player base.

I never liked the triple/double unwritten rules as no one really ever broke them and it really was never worth any value to break them. My definition of Anti Hoarding was always to protect the top states within the tag NOT players wil my skill level at netting.

MAGGIO
12-04-2012, 21:38
mayday mayday there ain't shit on the market! Scav said it first! Less land = Less production help:::in possible need of tweeking

blaa
12-05-2012, 02:51
less land = less demand
Commercial Zones: 21% (104.990)
Residential Zones: 27% (137.106)
Industrial Zones: 30% (149.200)
Farming Zones: 9% (43.862)
Science Facilities: 7% (37.453)
Construction Sites: 6% (29.038)

those numbers aren't perfect either.

"I never liked the triple/double unwritten rules as no one really ever broke them and it really was never worth any value to break them." Do you read what you type? Or this was how you meant it? You have no problem with the rule, because it made sense, to you and others, not to break it, but you hated it because it was a rule. Maggio, look at my signature, and answer to my question. What makes alliances complicated? The colors or alliances in general? Honestly I think it can be both with you, because you are so unpredictable.

MAGGIO
12-05-2012, 04:11
less land = less demand
Commercial Zones: 21% (104.990)
Residential Zones: 27% (137.106)
Industrial Zones: 30% (149.200)
Farming Zones: 9% (43.862)
Science Facilities: 7% (37.453)
Construction Sites: 6% (29.038)

those numbers aren't perfect either.

"I never liked the triple/double unwritten rules as no one really ever broke them and it really was never worth any value to break them." Do you read what you type? Or this was how you meant it? You have no problem with the rule, because it made sense, to you and others, not to break it, but you hated it because it was a rule. Maggio, look at my signature, and answer to my question. What makes alliances complicated? The colors or alliances in general? Honestly I think it can be both with you, because you are so unpredictable.

sorry i had to adjust my settings to see your sig.

on the triple double issue. as a guideline I understood it. as a reason for war it was rare because it rarely happened, and when it did happen it usually wasnt worth going to war over for the most part. the post I was replying too when i posted that had something to do with making up reasons for war or something like that. now there is no doubles and triples and NO ONE has come out and said what type of retal policy they will enforce etc... so we will all just have to see what happens, and what its gonig to take to cause a war, or will warring be helpful to a nations NW, or continue to be hurtful as it was before, or what its going to take to win the game with these new parameters.

as for your signature... Look, not all of my ideas are winners, im just trying to have a conversation, or brainstorm, or debate. I throw ideas out as they come in. I want the game to do better, I want to help, I want to be part of the process. I throw a lot of ideas out there, and I dont reread what I say, or go back and fix all the spelling errors as I am not being graded here by any teacher, and I am not being paid for my efforts. Most of the time you can understand what I meant and I think you can understand that I care about the game even if we are feuding.

I am willing to change my position on things if someone else comes up with a better idea, or points out that my ideas wont work etc... pointing out my grammatical or literal errors is pointless bcasuse i am admitting to you right here and now that I do not go back and make sure its perfect so i can an A from a teacher, or whatever.

when i made the post about the alliances, I was simply saying that I saw a game where you could be on a team but also be a part of a larger alliance. Just as players are on football teams and there are divisions and leagues, or during the civil war there where many states, but it the country was divided into the north and south (blue and gray). There was talks about the axis of evil recently and it reminded me of the game I once saw. it would be no different than public allainces with in this game that were somehow color coded so that all could see which nations and states belonged to which alliances.

Honestly I am about done with you. Everytime we get into a game dispute you turn it into personal attacks. I dont know you, I dont know who you are, where you come from I only know this charactor name blaa. In the game I dont like this charactor because he goes against ideas that I find to be sound and creditable. I say I am against hoarding with many others, and you want to pick the definition of hoarding apart when you know hoarding is an issue with the game. You argue about puncuation, and grammer while all the while avoiding the major points of the arguement. Your a smart guy, with good ideas (and I guess you can spell pretty good too) but your stubborn, and you cant admit when you dont have the upper hand, and you are on losing. instead of just conceding to the the fact that you do not have the backing to take out DEAD why dont you just not hoard for a few sets and see how things go instead of attacking me personally? Everyone has the right to play the way they want, but sometimes that means you are guaranteed to restart a few times per set. Its just getting old. DEAD signed a NAP with ICN for this set. that is how over it we are. There are new rules ingame now, and no one knows what the issues will be. hoarding, no hoarding, how many GA warrent a retal, whats going to cause wars? all of these questions need to be answered. Why dont we back off the personal attacks on each other until we figure these things out?

heyneken
12-05-2012, 04:11
Maggio, look at my signature, and answer to my question. What makes alliances complicated? The colors or alliances in general? Honestly I think it can be both with you, because you are so unpredictable.

I'm guessing the names. You'll then have a state name, nation name AND a<deleted> alliance name. Definitely the names.

MAGGIO
12-05-2012, 04:50
Must be

heyneken
12-05-2012, 04:56
I think the point where people brainstorm is kind of over. Gather up your best suggestions to one brief post so that people wouldn't be put off by your constant wall of writing. Also, we shouldn't just make new changes for the sake of making changes. I'm not saying it's definitely the case with you, but it kind of feels that way.

MAGGIO
12-05-2012, 10:21
Given the recent drastic change I'm just trying to give my input hoping at least one of the ideas will help. I never expect most or all my ideas to happen. Just brainstorming and giving my opinions on my observations.

blaa
12-05-2012, 10:51
Ok, but what do you expect after you finish another post with many suggestions? That people start commenting/improving them? That we try each and every idea you suggest? I think you should stick to one idea that YOU think is awesome as shit and present it to others after you have thought it through. It's not a problem to put a few paragraphs together and when people don't like it, then just come up with more random ideas.

You say that balancing units is impossible. I say the original wow/nw was very well balanaced, yeah, you can say that it caused infantry hoarding. Yeah, but I say that is not a problem. You kill others (usually select who you kill) for hoarding and call it your principle. Sure, I can live with that. But then you go and call for huge changes in the game, I think that is not reasonable.

You see, whenever I see your idea, I pretty much assume it is bad, because you play the game bad, so why on earth would I assume that your ideas rock? Even you say, that you don't know if your ideas work... why would anyone comment or support them?

My point is, think it through.

MAGGIO
12-05-2012, 12:28
i know the whole hoarding thing is a real issue between us.

what i was saying by "dont know if it will work" was me just trying to admit that im not a "know it all", NOT that I dont think things out or think they will work.

an example what I suggested the BR take land and tried to explain my reasoning. Will (i think) said feeding will be an issue and counter suggested that an increase in buildings destroyed would be a good incentive rather than my idea. I agreed and admitted that I didnt think of the feeding issue.

Admitting when I am wrong or dont know everything does not mean my ideas suck. Many of my ideas have been implemented over the years. i have had good ones and they are now part of the game and community so that should show YOU that I have good ideas and they should be considered.

A lot of what I do is post my brainstorming ideas. Even if my idea is rough, then another member could be inspired to come up with an alternate version or refine my idea. Even if my idea gets the juices flowing for someone else and they post a completely different idea then at least it out there and we are thinking.

You heyn and few others HATE ME, so even if the idea is decent it will always be scewed by your dislike of the way i play which is something I cannot help. also, just beause I play my turns a certain way when fighting with states and nations in the game doesnt always reflect how I feel about the game or community as a whole, but I understand how it would be hard to seperate the two for some, especially the ones who dislike me the most.

blaa
12-05-2012, 13:44
Don't play the hate card again :P. I don't hate you. You say you post because you are brainstorming and that's a good thing. I post because I want to criticize your posts, if they are constructive or not, is up to you to decide.

MAGGIO
12-05-2012, 14:13
at this point i dont want to hijack the thread anymore with our back and forth. if you like an idea say so, if not please say so too, just give me some contructive feedback specific to the suggestion and I will respect that.

Mr President
01-02-2013, 12:10
The new set has started. I lost internet due to the storm and didn't get it back. (still don't have it) and of course my phone doesn't work where I live. I was able to reset the round but that was all. No changes were made this set. We can make them as we move through the set if needed.

One thing I am thinking about doing - I am thinking of adding back in the SA but adjust it some, remove some units and balance them a little better and make it so Infantry is not the only unit you need to survive. Also, making it so you keep land during war attacks. Last set all I saw was people abusing the hell out of GA against the bots and others. nobody really fought back when GA'd. I understood the first part of the set doing this so people could try things out, but not the last.

My intentions were that GA was not to become the new SA. If that is going to be the case then SA will be returned.

MAGGIO
01-02-2013, 12:28
The new set has started. I lost internet due to the storm and didn't get it back. (still don't have it) and of course my phone doesn't work where I live. I was able to reset the round but that was all. No changes were made this set. We can make them as we move through the set if needed.

One thing I am thinking about doing - I am thinking of adding back in the SA but adjust it some, remove some units and balance them a little better and make it so Infantry is not the only unit you need to survive. Also, making it so you keep land during war attacks. Last set all I saw was people abusing the hell out of GA against the bots and others. nobody really fought back when GA'd. I understood the first part of the set doing this so people could try things out, but not the last.

My intentions were that GA was not to become the new SA. If that is going to be the case then SA will be returned.

I only see two options going forward.

1. Keep on with this GA update but remove ALL BOTS to see if people will defend themselves. But major updates would have to be made on how easy it currently is to kill a state with a GA. Many nations last set did nothing in the way of warring even though land was being taken from them rampantly. The state scores pretty much sum it all up. The only way to win the set with the GA update is to take out other states entirely. Either way removing the bots will only give you an outlook on what might happen if the ONLY way to get any real land is to take it from an active state and what that state will do in reaction to that. You may just get the same results in a few sets and go to option 2 anyway.

2. Do exactly what you were thinking by removing some un-used units, going back to SA, try keeping the land, and making some other adjustments. Try to simplify your workload and focus on fixing some other issues.


I think we voted a bit too early on whether or not to keep the changes last set. After playing the whole set I think not having the SA took something away from the game in some way and the GA update didnt replace that "something" quite how I personally thought it would. You can see quite a few people are not playing this set from two sets ago which i find a little alarming. I am not sure if it was just the nation i was in, but after getting stomped on in the first week the nation I was in just seemed to cave. It seemed other members did the same as well.

blaa
01-03-2013, 07:12
Maybe it's time to open the debate on where we are going again? Now that the biggest advocates for the changes(besides maggio) have left the game (DEAD) it seems reasonable.

Current situation, in my opinion:
Maggio-Wars.
Sure, it still takes skill to win, but I'm afraid nobody wanted this outcome. Biggest nation/most active nation wins, nothing wrong with that, but look at last set. Was it fun for anybody else besides RO (and wank - we did get to win one war, although lost another)? USA didn't participate in a single war. How fun was that? TOP10 had 200k land, you guys had like 50k max. So the only way to win = kill others. Not a difficult task ask you can have 400 turns in hand and you can easily kill one state with that much. I think it would work much better if there were more equal nations in the game, so maybe I'm being too harsh.
Units are better now? Better than the old ingenius way the units were logically balanced? Where's the logic now? If enemy can break you in one of four attack (hoard basically) then you can be killed. I don't see an improvement.
Why I call it maggio wars because it reminds me of a post maggio did some time ago, and its not meant as an insult. He explained that grabbing was taking too many clicks. Now we have lost some clicks, you don't need to click on global events anymore, just spy and attack with GA.

In my opinion the old game did not have any faults or misfunctions in it. Hoarding - not a problem. DEAD dealt with it good. They didn't like it, they warred. But hoarding was not a programming error. The units interacted with one another in a way that using too much money on upgrading early on didn't give you much chance to win the game.
The only programming error there was, was that the rounds were usually decided within the first week. The problem worsened when the land expanding was increased (1.5 years ago ?). Now the jumps took place at 3-5 days in to the set.

I suggest:
*Go back to old game
*Shorten round length, because shorter game equals less tension if wars happen. Now you have to wait weeks before you could have a normal set, but with like 14 day sets you would only have to wait days.
*Lose unneeded stuff that just 'are there':
-tanks, no point with low playerbase. Looking at the numbers you can see that they are better than infantry. But with this low playerbase there aren't enough players to buy them.
-State tax. You always have it at 50%. It's just there to confuse the newbies, plus it doesn't offer much of a strategical advantage for those who like to spend time on the game.
-lose 5 upgrade levels, so you have 3 levels left (weak, medium, strong). weak would = level 1, medium = something like 4 or 6 and strong = 8. Make sure we DON'T lose the fact that upgrading should take place when you have 0 units and having units while upgrading = pay more. Because I think it offers a significant strategical factor.
-lose 2 types of casher buildings. Casher zone is enough. No strategical advantage involved, it's just there to confuse the newbies.
*tweak LG formula so having lots of land wouldn't equal to losing a lot of land to low land states automatically

We can't just be going around and creating new game all the time and hoping a lot of new players will join in a day. We can't be saying that our old game was bad because player numbers dropped. When there was that old players reunion set, I think we had 80+ active states, plus years ago there were hundreds and even thousands of players. Maybe the problem why we have 30+ states now isn't the game? Maybe its the players? Invite your old buddies to play again. But how plausible is that scenario now that there isn't much left from the old game?

Dogma
01-03-2013, 08:02
I have to say, I TOTALLY agree with this post. What we have now is no where near the game we all got addicted to so many years ago. Personally, I don't like what we have now and wouldn't even play it if I just happened to find it online now.

Devil
01-03-2013, 09:21
Maybe it's time to open the debate on where we are going again? Now that the biggest advocates for the changes(besides maggio) have left the game (DEAD) it seems reasonable.

Current situation, in my opinion:
Maggio-Wars.
Sure, it still takes skill to win, but I'm afraid nobody wanted this outcome. Biggest nation/most active nation wins, nothing wrong with that, but look at last set. Was it fun for anybody else besides RO (and wank - we did get to win one war, although lost another)? USA didn't participate in a single war. How fun was that? TOP10 had 200k land, you guys had like 50k max. So the only way to win = kill others. Not a difficult task ask you can have 400 turns in hand and you can easily kill one state with that much. I think it would work much better if there were more equal nations in the game, so maybe I'm being too harsh.
Units are better now? Better than the old ingenius way the units were logically balanced? Where's the logic now? If enemy can break you in one of four attack (hoard basically) then you can be killed. I don't see an improvement.
Why I call it maggio wars because it reminds me of a post maggio did some time ago, and its not meant as an insult. He explained that grabbing was taking too many clicks. Now we have lost some clicks, you don't need to click on global events anymore, just spy and attack with GA.

In my opinion the old game did not have any faults or misfunctions in it. Hoarding - not a problem. DEAD dealt with it good. They didn't like it, they warred. But hoarding was not a programming error. The units interacted with one another in a way that using too much money on upgrading early on didn't give you much chance to win the game.
The only programming error there was, was that the rounds were usually decided within the first week. The problem worsened when the land expanding was increased (1.5 years ago ?). Now the jumps took place at 3-5 days in to the set.

I suggest:
*Go back to old game
*Shorten round length, because shorter game equals less tension if wars happen. Now you have to wait weeks before you could have a normal set, but with like 14 day sets you would only have to wait days.
*Lose unneeded stuff that just 'are there':
-tanks, no point with low playerbase. Looking at the numbers you can see that they are better than infantry. But with this low playerbase there aren't enough players to buy them.
-State tax. You always have it at 50%. It's just there to confuse the newbies, plus it doesn't offer much of a strategical advantage for those who like to spend time on the game.
-lose 5 upgrade levels, so you have 3 levels left (weak, medium, strong). weak would = level 1, medium = something like 4 or 6 and strong = 8. Make sure we DON'T lose the fact that upgrading should take place when you have 0 units and having units while upgrading = pay more. Because I think it offers a significant strategical factor.
-lose 2 types of casher buildings. Casher zone is enough. No strategical advantage involved, it's just there to confuse the newbies.
*tweak LG formula so having lots of land wouldn't equal to losing a lot of land to low land states automatically

We can't just be going around and creating new game all the time and hoping a lot of new players will join in a day. We can't be saying that our old game was bad because player numbers dropped. When there was that old players reunion set, I think we had 80+ active states, plus years ago there were hundreds and even thousands of players. Maybe the problem why we have 30+ states now isn't the game? Maybe its the players? Invite your old buddies to play again. But how plausible is that scenario now that there isn't much left from the old game?

i pretty much agrree. I just say keep both casher buildings

MellonColly
01-03-2013, 12:39
i agree. I like blaa's suggestions

MAGGIO
01-03-2013, 14:50
I agree with the simplifications that blaa has suggested. I have made dozens of simplification suggestions. The GA update was not my idea as presented but I did want to try it out. I have long suggested the simplifications of units and upgrades as well as deadlinks, unused pages and needless processeses.

So if these suggestions get implemented and they work out can it still be Maggio-Wars? ;)

Dogma
01-03-2013, 14:55
I am sorry, but look at the participation this set. what do we have 45 players? I don't think we can afford these "try it and see" sets as people have a very short attention span and too many of these that don't work and we lose the entire player base.

My suggestion to those who think there are too many clicks or functions, don't use the ones you don't want to use and leave the rest alone. This is killing us, literally.

MAGGIO
01-03-2013, 15:35
I thought the ideal was sound. We pretty much lost two whole nations Dead and Welfare State WS. WS cited bordom, and DEAD pretty much got sick of going back and forth with the hoarding issue and moved over to another game that is drastically different then NW. You cannot site the GA change as the main reason for both of those, but the face that WANK wiped DEAD out in one short strike certainly didnt help. After that leadership was lost in DEAD which made for a super long boring set. I think the FS change was a cherry on top for those who where getting bored with the game as a whole including the community. Just my two cents.

The only other option was to do a test server and that NEVER works since the activity is lame at best and very short lived on test servers.

MAGGIO
01-03-2013, 17:19
at the same point I think I recall Grim stating that if something was not done after the Nov Set that he was going inactive, so Dec brought change and DEAD got wiped out and they ended up going inactive.

Dogma
01-03-2013, 17:47
I thought the ideal was sound. We pretty much lost two whole nations Dead and Welfare State WS. WS cited bordom, and DEAD pretty much got sick of going back and forth with the hoarding issue and moved over to another game that is drastically different then NW. You cannot site the GA change as the main reason for both of those, but the face that WANK wiped DEAD out in one short strike certainly didnt help. After that leadership was lost in DEAD which made for a super long boring set. I think the FS change was a cherry on top for those who where getting bored with the game as a whole including the community. Just my two cents.

The only other option was to do a test server and that NEVER works since the activity is lame at best and very short lived on test servers.

I agree that changes could have helped, I. just think that what was done made the game so different it made things worse. I honestly think that Blaa should actually be listened to and maybe consulted on the balance. factor. This is no longer the game we played.

Dogma
01-03-2013, 17:47
I thought the ideal was sound. We pretty much lost two whole nations Dead and Welfare State WS. WS cited bordom, and DEAD pretty much got sick of going back and forth with the hoarding issue and moved over to another game that is drastically different then NW. You cannot site the GA change as the main reason for both of those, but the face that WANK wiped DEAD out in one short strike certainly didnt help. After that leadership was lost in DEAD which made for a super long boring set. I think the FS change was a cherry on top for those who where getting bored with the game as a whole including the community. Just my two cents.

The only other option was to do a test server and that NEVER works since the activity is lame at best and very short lived on test servers.

I agree that changes could have helped, I. just think that what was done made the game so different it made things worse. I honestly think that Blaa should actually be listened to and maybe consulted on the balance. factor. This is no longer the game we played.

Mr President
01-03-2013, 21:49
DEAD was on its way out anyway. Just kinda sad that they ask for change, get it and then leave anyway. I don't think we really did any harm trying something new. Not like we really had much left to lose anyway but I do agree with maggio, something was missing. I like the old style of playing and think we do that and add in the keeping of land. SA needs to be tweaked and units need to go away.

The one comment I most agree with and have stated a trillion times is maybe its not the game but the people.

We can't please everyone. So here is the deal. I'll return the game to normal but make some changes. We need to discuss round lengths a little more. I need pros and cons for that.

This new style does have potential. Perhaps someday I'll work on it and make it another server.

One other thing that I plan to do is make the game fully automated. this means the game will reset and perform all other functions automatically. Admins will still need to check basic day to day functions but being automated will take some crap off of me.

Not going to lie. I'm pretty burnt out. I have to force myself to log on these days lol. Work and life is just really busy and I don't see it slowing down anytime soon. However I do still have a love of this game and really don't want to see it go away. I just need to get it to a place then take a few sets totally away and then I'm sure I'll be better.

In the next few weeks there will be some position changes to help me with the game and other functions. I will also be removing some things that just take up space. I really only want to make changes that make sense and will improve the game.

If we only ever have 60 people playing then so be it. We will always strive to expand and increase our player base but by removing the "need" to expand I think things will be a little more fun. As long as those who continue to play, continue to buy premiums and support the game, it will remain. And a long term goal is to make the game an app. Really wish I could work on that sooner but I just don't have any time to make it happen right now.

Mr President
01-03-2013, 21:55
I agree that changes could have helped, I. just think that what was done made the game so different it made things worse. I honestly think that Blaa should actually be listened to and maybe consulted on the balance. factor. This is no longer the game we played.


I agree that changes could have helped, I. just think that what was done made the game so different it made things worse. I honestly think that Blaa should actually be listened to and maybe consulted on the balance. factor. This is no longer the game we played.

Great... The changes have driven dogma over the edge. Now he is repeating his comments.

Dogma
01-03-2013, 23:00
No I am not.

Dogma
01-03-2013, 23:01
no I am not.

Scav
01-04-2013, 06:05
if you are gonna revert to the old, please cap the max amount gained on SA to a % of your own land. yes killing is to easy in the current set up, but the effect of stonewalling (gaining 1000's of land when down to a few hundred land) was ridiculous before. a more radical approach would be to cap the number of units that your land can support (lose a few % units per turn until the amount of units <= the max amount supported for your land). but that might be a bit to drastic

Divine Intervention
01-04-2013, 16:36
Maybe it's time to open the debate on where we are going again? Now that the biggest advocates for the changes(besides maggio) have left the game (DEAD) it seems reasonable.

Current situation, in my opinion:
Maggio-Wars.
Sure, it still takes skill to win, but I'm afraid nobody wanted this outcome. Biggest nation/most active nation wins, nothing wrong with that, but look at last set. Was it fun for anybody else besides RO (and wank - we did get to win one war, although lost another)? USA didn't participate in a single war. How fun was that? TOP10 had 200k land, you guys had like 50k max. So the only way to win = kill others. Not a difficult task ask you can have 400 turns in hand and you can easily kill one state with that much. I think it would work much better if there were more equal nations in the game, so maybe I'm being too harsh.
Units are better now? Better than the old ingenius way the units were logically balanced? Where's the logic now? If enemy can break you in one of four attack (hoard basically) then you can be killed. I don't see an improvement.
Why I call it maggio wars because it reminds me of a post maggio did some time ago, and its not meant as an insult. He explained that grabbing was taking too many clicks. Now we have lost some clicks, you don't need to click on global events anymore, just spy and attack with GA.

In my opinion the old game did not have any faults or misfunctions in it. Hoarding - not a problem. DEAD dealt with it good. They didn't like it, they warred. But hoarding was not a programming error. The units interacted with one another in a way that using too much money on upgrading early on didn't give you much chance to win the game.
The only programming error there was, was that the rounds were usually decided within the first week. The problem worsened when the land expanding was increased (1.5 years ago ?). Now the jumps took place at 3-5 days in to the set.

I suggest:
*Go back to old game
*Shorten round length, because shorter game equals less tension if wars happen. Now you have to wait weeks before you could have a normal set, but with like 14 day sets you would only have to wait days.
*Lose unneeded stuff that just 'are there':
-tanks, no point with low playerbase. Looking at the numbers you can see that they are better than infantry. But with this low playerbase there aren't enough players to buy them.
-State tax. You always have it at 50%. It's just there to confuse the newbies, plus it doesn't offer much of a strategical advantage for those who like to spend time on the game.
-lose 5 upgrade levels, so you have 3 levels left (weak, medium, strong). weak would = level 1, medium = something like 4 or 6 and strong = 8. Make sure we DON'T lose the fact that upgrading should take place when you have 0 units and having units while upgrading = pay more. Because I think it offers a significant strategical factor.
-lose 2 types of casher buildings. Casher zone is enough. No strategical advantage involved, it's just there to confuse the newbies.
*tweak LG formula so having lots of land wouldn't equal to losing a lot of land to low land states automatically

We can't just be going around and creating new game all the time and hoping a lot of new players will join in a day. We can't be saying that our old game was bad because player numbers dropped. When there was that old players reunion set, I think we had 80+ active states, plus years ago there were hundreds and even thousands of players. Maybe the problem why we have 30+ states now isn't the game? Maybe its the players? Invite your old buddies to play again. But how plausible is that scenario now that there isn't much left from the old game?

def agree with the casher stuff. no need to confuse the n00bies. most of these points tbh. except the one about RO having fun lol. dunno not particularly fun just farming everyone in a row i n10mins. you dont even need to look at GE anymore to see if its a good grab....

Hedge
01-04-2013, 19:48
DEAD was on its way out anyway. Just kinda sad that they ask for change, get it and then leave anyway. I don't think we really did any harm trying something new. Not like we really had much left to lose anyway but I do agree with maggio, something was missing. I like the old style of playing and think we do that and add in the keeping of land. SA needs to be tweaked and units need to go away.

The one comment I most agree with and have stated a trillion times is maybe its not the game but the people.

We can't please everyone. So here is the deal. I'll return the game to normal but make some changes. We need to discuss round lengths a little more. I need pros and cons for that.

This new style does have potential. Perhaps someday I'll work on it and make it another server.

One other thing that I plan to do is make the game fully automated. this means the game will reset and perform all other functions automatically. Admins will still need to check basic day to day functions but being automated will take some crap off of me.

Not going to lie. I'm pretty burnt out. I have to force myself to log on these days lol. Work and life is just really busy and I don't see it slowing down anytime soon. However I do still have a love of this game and really don't want to see it go away. I just need to get it to a place then take a few sets totally away and then I'm sure I'll be better.

In the next few weeks there will be some position changes to help me with the game and other functions. I will also be removing some things that just take up space. I really only want to make changes that make sense and will improve the game.

If we only ever have 60 people playing then so be it. We will always strive to expand and increase our player base but by removing the "need" to expand I think things will be a little more fun. As long as those who continue to play, continue to buy premiums and support the game, it will remain. And a long term goal is to make the game an app. Really wish I could work on that sooner but I just don't have any time to make it happen right now.

so what game did they go to?

Dogma
01-05-2013, 00:03
def agree with the casher stuff. no need to confuse the n00bies. most of these points tbh. except the one about RO having fun lol. dunno not particularly fun just farming everyone in a row i n10mins. you dont even need to look at GE anymore to see if its a good grab....

Again I agree. It seems as though all thought was removed from the game. And I don't repeat myself.

MAGGIO
01-28-2013, 15:20
BRING ON V2.1

Hedge
01-28-2013, 18:30
no we are going back to version 1,9 i belive :P